1. This second appeal raises limitation. The main facts are not in dispute. 3 and the father of the second plaintiff sold the suit property to one Chidambara Pathan and his brother Vaithyalinga Pathan, by a sale-deed dated the 16th October, 1911, and as on the said date the second plaintiff was a minor, a sum of Rs. 800 was retained with the vendees to be paid either on the second plaintiff attaining majority or on the vendors giving security. On the said date a mortgage-deed was executed by both Vaithyalinga Pathan and Chidambara Pathan in favour of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff for Rs. 800 securing that amount. The recital as regards payment under the said mortgage is to this effect:

We will pay you the said sum of Rs. 800 without any objection together with interest at 11 as. per cent, per mensem at any time whenever you demand us to pay after giving security for the sum.

2. On the 19th December, 1915, the vendees appear to have usuf ructuarily mortgaged the said property to one Kandaswami Pillai by a deed in and by which it was stipulated that the usufructuary mortgagee should pay the said sum of Rs. 800 secured by the mortgage as aforesaid in